pmg_what_group_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a mutation, defaults to a dry-run (safe mode), and requires confirm=True to execute. It mentions partial updates (only non-None fields sent). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, error states, or auth requirements beyond the implicit mutation note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of three sentences. It is front-loaded with the mutation category and purpose, followed by essential usage details and return value. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's 7 parameters and 1 required, the description adequately explains the core behavior, update semantics, and execution confirmation. The return format is specified for confirm=True. However, the dry-run output format is not described, and the output schema (though present) is not provided, leaving some ambiguity about what the plan looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds critical semantic information: 'Only non-None fields are sent, others keep their current value.' This partial-update behavior is not apparent from the schema alone. Additionally, it explains the confirm parameter's effect. This adds significant value beyond the schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it updates a PMG RuleDB 'what' object group config, specifies the action as 'MUTATION (MEDIUM)', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that modify match objects (pmg_what_object_add, etc.). The verb 'update' and the resource 'PMG RuleDB 'what' object group config' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when not to use this tool by directing users to sibling tools for changing match objects: 'to change its match objects use pmg_what_object_add/pmg_what_object_update/pmg_what_object_delete'. It also explains the dry-run default behavior and the confirm flag. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over others beyond that single exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.